Chrome Course MCP

by CrispyW0nton

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

chrome_click

Click an element by CSS selector or visible text to automate actions on control panels and file-manager buttons.

Instructions

Click an element by CSS selector or visible text. Useful for control panels and file-manager buttons.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "chrome_click"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`text`	No
`exact`	No
`tabId`	No
`waitMs`	No
`debugUrl`	No	http://127.0.0.1:9222
`selector`	No
`urlContains`	No
`titleContains`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the targeting mechanism. It fails to explain behavior around tab selection, waiting, navigation side effects, or error handling—critical aspects for a browser automation tool with 8 parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word serves a purpose: the first states the core action, the second provides a practical use case. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the description is only one line. It lacks essential information about return values, error behavior, tab selection, waiting logic, and how the various filtering parameters interact. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'selector' and 'text' implicitly, but leaves six other parameters (exact, tabId, waitMs, debugUrl, urlContains, titleContains) completely unexplained. The added semantics are minimal and insufficient for the parameter count.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Click') and resource ('element'), and specifies two targeting methods (CSS selector or visible text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_type, chrome_select, and chrome_press, which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Useful for control panels and file-manager buttons' gives some contextual guidance on when to apply the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides a hint of appropriate scenarios but lacks clear comparison to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.